Vol. 14(4), pp. 110-122, April, 2020

DOI: 10.5897/AJBM2016.8121

Article Number: 000637963499

ISSN: 1993-8233

Copyright© 2020

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article

http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM

African Journal of Business Management

Full Length Research Paper

The effect of workplace incivility on organizational outcome (mediating role of psychological capital)

Xu Shi Guo1 and Shalendra Satish Kumar2*

1Department of International Business, School of Business Administration, Chungnam National University, Korea.

2Department of Business Administration, Chungnam National University, Korea.

Received 16 August 2016; Accepted 18 October, 2016

The major purpose of this study was to assess the impact of workplace incivility on organizational outcomes as well as the mediating effect of psychological capital on this process particularly in academic organization in Fiji. To accomplish this purpose, personal distribution of 250 questionnaires was given to the teachers. The final response rate from employees was 90% (225/250). The result shows that workplace incivility was found to be negatively significant to organizational commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction. Secondly, there was a negative relationship between workplace incivility and psychological capital. Thirdly, as predicted psychological capital was positively significantly related to organizational commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction. Fourthly the mediating role of psychological capital was identified to have significant relationship between workplace incivility and organizational outcome. Finally practical recommendation was suggested for the employees of Ministry of Education, Fiji. Key words: Workplace incivility, psychological capital, organizational commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION Workplace incivility is constantly increasing with the challenging characteristic of the contemporary society. Every year millions of employees fall victim of work place incivility. According to Person and Porath (2005), it is an alarming to detect that workplace incivility dominates in many organization oscillating from government agencies, medical organizations, National sports organization to academic and many other non-profit and profit organization. Workplace Incivility has been labeled as “organizational chaos” where work is not well organized or coordinated. The novelty of this study is twofold. Firstly workplace is seen as social process; therefore it

becomes interesting to explore the evolution of workplace incivility and then examining its phenomena on the organizational commitments, job commitments and job satisfaction. Secondly, examining the mediating effect of Psychological Capital between workplace incivility and the organizational outcomes. The current study demarcates from preceding research work and adding new contribution of information to an already existing knowledge. Workplace incivility is defined in accordance to Anderson and Pearson‟s (1999) definition: “workplace incivility is low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violations of workplace

*Corresponding author. E-mail: salenkumar35@yahoo.com.

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution

License 4.0 International License

norms for mutual respect”. He stated that barbaric behaviors are usually discourteous rude, and displays absence of regard for fellow coworkers. Low-intensity refers to verbal phenomena rather than being physical. It is active and indirect forms of behavior (Pearson a n d Porath, 2005). Workplace incivility generally includes three parties: The instigator, the target and the observer. These positions are not mutually exclusive; where one acts as the instigator, they could also be the target or observer in another situation (Anderson and Pearson, 1999). This research brings lime light the issues of what the academics in Fiji suffer silently, bounded by the code of ethics of Ministry of Education which forbids them from disclosing their work publicly. The ever changing demands and constant pressures from stakeholders are directly affecting the academics and its professions. The pleasure of producing an outstanding learner is dampened and destroyed by creation of workplace incivility, unrealistic goals and demand on teachers and the excitement of assisting in young mind to flourish with enriching knowledge is being discouraged and depressed by rising tensions, stultifying work environment and unrealistic work demands on the academics. The aim of this research is to analyse the relationship that exist between incivility and the organisational outcome among academics in Fiji. By exploring these issues, we hope to contribute to the current study and its confounding relationship between incivility and organisational outcome and on the same note suggesting a psychological capital as a method that can mediate the relationship between them. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Workplace incivility Recently workplace incivility has been seen as a burgeoning concern and a universal phenomenon which organisations should initiate its focus towards. Workplace incivility is a behaviour that exists in the organisation that violates the organisational norm which threatens the well-being of the organisation and its employees. Workplace incivility is recently a very new notion of antisocial behavior that has been perceived in various disciplines such as education, nursing and management sectors. It is characterized as disrespect, thoughtlessness, rudeness and therefore workplace incivility is defined as low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect (Anderson a n d Pearson, 1999). It was further defined as low in intensity compared to other disparate forms of divergent behaviors such as workplace violence and workplace aggression (Neuman a n d Baron, 1998), tyranny (Ashforth, 1994), workplace bullying and harassment (Rospenda, 2002). Incivility is not only restricted to

X u a n d K u m a r 1 1 1 verbal mistreat but rather it can also be nonverbal. Although incivility represents low intensity behavior, it should not be contemplated as trivial or harmless. As a result of its low intensity, it is difficult to observe and easily neglected; never the less, continuously ignoring these tendencies will allows incivility in the organization to intensify into more relentless workplace violence. The consequence of Workplace incivility has a pernicious effect on both victims and organizations. Estes and Wang (2008) in their research found out that at individual level, victims usually undergo psychological distress due to discourteous actions and words thus experiencing anxiety, low self-esteem, depression, insomnia, and stress. In Fiji some common issues that concerning the workplace are as follows: Not switching off mobile phones while in meetings, leaving behind a jammed photocopier or printer after use (Johnson and Indvik, 2001), sending an awful and belittling note, making accusations or undermining coworker‟s credibility in front of others, shouting, talking loudly on the phone about personal matters during working hours, answering the phone in casual way, responding to coworkers in somewhat too casual way, not sharing relevant information (Hutton, 2006), gossiping about workmates to capture other‟s attention (Johnson and Indvik, 2001), not brewing coffee for a next pot, standing unsolicited but irritably over the desk of someone engaging in a telephone conversation, throwing trashes carelessly, are other examples of interpersonal uncivil behaviors (Martin, 1996). Using others‟ stationeries without permission and excluding coworkers from staff-based social activities are also included as precedent of operationalized workplace incivility (Hutton, 2006). For organization, this type of working culture or situation is catastrophic and detrimental (Hallowell, 1999). According to Andersson a n d Pearson (1999), workplace incivility takes four forms and they are:

1. Exclusionary behavior: Exclusionary range from minor exclusionary tactics such as curt responses to more serious instances, with the most serious form of ostracism behavior is defined as: Individual‟s action that leaves out other coworkers in the organization on high degree of divergent. 2. Gossiping: A spreading of false or negative information about coworkers to another person or group in regards to their personal, private and confidential information. The term is frequently used with negative connotations, referring to spreading of malicious information, unreliably sourced and unchecked anecdotes and misinformation. The other negative views of gossip are its being trivial, invasive, and commonly harmful. 3. Hostility: Hostility is a behavior that seeks to perpetrate harm which is not physical in nature. The most common ones that have been observed in the organizations are generally rude, discourteous and display lack of regards

112 Afr. J. Bus. Manage.

Figure 1. Spiral theory of incivility model (Andersson and Pearson, 1999) depicting Tit for Tat method.

for others. Hostility is a type of nonphysical incivility that seeks to inflict anger, hatred, or harm. 4. Privacy invasion: Privacy Invasion is “invading into the personal life of another coworker, without just cause” It is further defined as the "intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause".

According to Andersson and Pearson‟s (1999) spiral theory of incivility (Figure 1) begins at the outset when an uncivil act is recognized and anticipated. Employee recognizes this as uncivil because it breaches the norms or is generally an unacceptable behavior. The victim either f a s c i n a t e d for retaliation stirred by negative affect decides to leave the organization and this could eventuate at any point along the spiral. The fascination for retaliations likely to result in unacceptable behavior in reaction to the incivility perceived. As the spiral advances further, employees are likely to reach a breaking point due to dissatisfaction such as anger,

insult, loss of face and this could bring about deliberate intense behaviors such as disorder or aggression within the organization. The spiral of incivility becomes contagious and this could progress until justice is restored, forgiveness is asked pardon is given, or one of the involved parties resigns. On the other hand Bau (1964), he used social exchange theory to describe how incivility is perceived and generated. He s t a t e d that social exchange theory is a social psychological perspective that describes social change as a mechanism of reciprocates between coworkers. When two individuals generate reciprocal activities from each other through a series of mutual exchanges therefore in the process developing a social exchange relationship. Furthermore it has been found that social exchange and reciprocal aggression theories support the i m p o r t a n c e of studying incivility. Furthermore Robinson and O‟Learry-Kelly adopted the concept of social learning theory to explain the development of antisocial behavior

in the workplace. This was further supported by Bandura (1977) that social learning theory proposes that individual behavior is influenced by role models for behavior. New members of an organization learn the values and assumptions of the organization through observing other members.

Psychological capital

Psychological capital is formalized as employee’s positive state of psychological development and this is described through: (1) Self-efficacy, having courage in putting the decisive effort to accomplish a demanding tasks; (2) Hope, enduring towards a goals and, if necessary, altering paths of goals in order to accomplish; and (3) Optimism, making a decisive attribution through current progress and in the future; (4) Resiliency, when surrounded by complications and difficulties, withstanding it and bouncing back and even beyond to achieve the ultimate. PsyCap is concerned with „who you are‟ and „what you are becoming in developmental sense (Luthans and Luthans, 2004). The sub dimensions of psychological capita are:

1. Self-efficacy: PsyCap efficacy or simply confidence can be defined as ones determination about his or her capabilities to activate motivation, cognitive resources and line of action needed to successfully perform a specific task within a given context. Self- efficacy employees are distinguished by 5 vital characteristics. (a) Selecting high goals and self- selecting complicated task; (b) Welcomes and succeed on challenges; (c) High self-motivation; (d) Devote necessary effort to achieve their goals; (e) Facing hindrance, they still continue. 2. Hope: Frequently used in everyday language, Snyder and Anderson (1991) described hope positive motivational as a state of interactively derivate sense of success in terms of (1) goal-directed energy; (2) planning to meet goals. In other words, hopeful employees not only have the motivation and the willpower to succeed, but also inherit an uncanny capacity for generating multiple ways to pursue their goals (Sneyder, 2000). 3. Optimism: Optimism is when an employee is adamant of desirable outcomes in the future. It is not about forecasting that favorable things will transpire in the future. An optimistic person is likely to adapt to change, see opportunity that arise in future and creating all possible opportunities to capitalize. 4. Resilience: Failure after failure does not deter a leader from seeking out achieving the mission they set forth for themselves in their organization or even entire societies. According to Luthans (2002) he describes resilience as an ability to rebound or bounce back from catastrophe, conflict, deficiencies which therefore increase

Xu and Kumar 113 responsibility. Workplace incivility and the organizational outcomes Organizational outcome comprised of organizational commitments, job satisfaction and job involvement. For the above research, workplace incivility is cor re lated with organizational outcome. Experiencing incivility in the workplace has been found to be related to a number of affective, attitudinal, cognitive and behavioural outcomes. Attitudinal and cognitive outcomes include decreased organizational commitment and motivation (Lim and Teo, 2009) and lower levels of perceived fairness (Lim and Lee, 2011) respectively. Workplace incivility displayed a negative statistically and practically significant relationship with the response to organizational outcomes consisting of organizational commitment, job involvement, and Job satisfaction. This was further supported by Lim and Cortina (2005) and Penney and Spector (2005) that workplace Incivility itself will reduce productivity, job commitments and job satisfaction. This study will empirically investigate the hypothesis that is described as follows:

Hypothesis 1: The workplace incivility is negatively related to the organizational outcomes

Workplace incivility and the organizational commitments

Organizational commitment is an attitudinal variable that signifies a level of affection an employee‟s has toward the organization. Research supports the existence of three types of Organizational Commitment (OC), Affective Commitment (AC), Normative Commitment (NC) and Continuance Commitment (CC). Affective refers to an incumbent‟s emotional affection towards the organization. In other words, individual’s expectations are met and their wishes to be part of the organization; whereas normative commitment is based on the individual’s values (it is where individual assumes that he /she has to stay because it is the ultimate thing to do). On the other hand, continuance commitment directly relates an employee’s perceived benefits of doing something. Social identification is an employee’s affection towards the social group and the aspiration to continue being a member in that particular group. According to Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian (1974), commitment is “acceptance of goals and values of an organization, willingness to apply ample effort on behalf of the organization, and a positive aspiration to maintain organizational membership.” According to Meyer (1993), “workers with a tenacious affective commitment endure with the organization and want to have a strong continuance commitment with organization. Employees that had a good relationship with their work unit had higher levels of organizational

1 1 4 A f r . J . B u s . M a n a g e . commitment. According to Jaros (1995) stated that affective commitment is the extremely vital out of three components of organizational commitment in anticipating organizational commitments. Affective commitment is positively correlated with work attitudes (Allen and Meyer, 1996) and having greater organizational commitments (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Incivility indirectly stimulates organizational commitments through effect on perceptions and fairness also distrust has been identified as the result of abuse and antecedent of organizat ional commitments (Taylor, 2010). This basis of above mentioned literature, presents study proposal that:

Hypothesis 1-1: Workplace incivility is negatively related to organizational commitment Workplace incivility and job satisfaction Job satisfaction is achieved when an employee feels comfortable within the organisation. Hence the talents and knowledge that an employee has can be utilised and get him/her promoted. According to better job analysis and job design, the recruitment process, training and development are vital and top priority in motivating employee performance and job satisfaction. Herzberg Two-factor theory accentuates on the motivator-hygiene factors which elaborates on job satisfaction and motivation in the organization. The theory conv inces that some component of job satisfaction enhances the motivation while some component causes job dissatisfaction. According Herzberg different factors lead to job satisfaction or to job dissatisfaction.

This theory further signifies different factors of motivation and hygiene that results in job satisfaction and dissatisfaction outcomes. Motivation drives employees to realize one’s personal and organizational goals. According to Spector (1997), job satisfaction is an employee’s affective response to how they feel about their work and its diverse aspects. Even though these definitions differ somewhat in content, many agree that job satisfaction is an affective reaction to individual’s work as a whole or to particular facets of the work. Workplace incivility, as modern discrimination, may directly experience has a negative effects relate to their job satisfaction.

Specifically, workplace incivility, will negatively affect a target’s ability to cope through the use of resources such as social support or general enjoyment with their job, eventually resulting in dissatisfaction with their work in general. Workplace incivility is causing strain in targets, and therefore resource depletion, they will likely experience decreased job satisfaction. This basis of above mentioned literature, presents study proposal that: Hypothesis 1-2: Workplace incivility is negatively related to job satisfaction

Workplace incivility and the job involvement Job involvement is defined as a degree to which a worker is involved in this given task and freedom in making decision. According to Bass (1965), employee’s job involvement increases if they have some authority in decision making process, and have greater responsibilities, this will boost the tempo of the work. Marcson (1960) and Kornhauser (1962) suggested that suitable method to escalate an output of workers in organizations is to bestow the workers with jobs that demand more involvement. An employee with a high level of job involvement will always consider job as a personal interests and vital component of their life. The well-known phrase „I live, eat, and breathe my job‟ would describe someone whose has a very high job involvement. According to (Kanungo, 1982) Job involvement is a distinct concept that contradicts from the concept of work ethic in the sense that it is one’s belief that work is vital, and employees should involve in work to better themselves. He further elaborated that Job involvement is also a distinct concept from organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Job involvement is how relevance is employee’s job to his or her life, and job satisfaction is the level of satisfaction a worker achieves from his or her work. However, employees may be subject to hostile working environment and they begin to feel stressful and exhausted. In this respect, employees reflect frustration, learning disabilities, and develop lower job involvement. Many research has revealed that when an employee’s experience workplace incivility, there psychological condition such as stress, anxiety and depression experienced by individuals can damage the organizations through performance and reducing productivity and job involvement (Baba, 1998). This basis of above mentioned literature, presents study proposal that: Hypothesis 1-3: Workplace incivility is negatively related to job involvement. Workplace incivility and the psychological capital

Work place incivility has been a major topic in organizational research over the past 20 years and is defined as negative treatment that is systematic, continuing over a period of time and perceived as directed towards one or more people who have difficulty defending themselves against it. The development of psychological capital has contributed to a focus on positives rather than negatives. It is a focus on resources rather than deficits. However there has been no research on the relationship between PsyCap and workplace incivility. Incivility at work has g e n e r a l l y been researched in terms of its negative impact, which provides us with a literature balanced in favour of what does not work as opposed to what does work.

Xu and Kumar 115

Figure 2. Hypothesized model.

The emergence of psychological capital has brought with it a revised focus based on the premise that perhaps we can learn more about fixing what is broken, by studying what is not broken. This basis of above mentioned literature, presents study proposal that: Hypothesis 2: Workplace incivility is negatively related to psychological capital. Psychological capital and organisational outcome Psychological capital is positively related to organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job involvement. High psychological capital in people is believed to own cognitive capabilities of self- regulation those offers the opening, self-discipline and energy essential to reach ones goal. Self-efficacy is considered to meet the illusion standard for psychological capital in positive organisational outcomes (organisational commitment, job satisfaction and job involvement). High psychological capital persons have ideas to put intentional efforts to produce original and creative ways in achieving goals. Organisational change in a positive sense, psychological capital is considered as person level high order component that facilitates change (Abbas and Raja, 2016). A person was shown positive job involvement and organisational commitments at the time of organisational change (Abbas and Raja, 2015). Psychological capital gives persons more confidence and excites the positive thinking, which should result in high organisational commitments, job involvements and job satisfaction. This basis of above mentioned literature, presents study proposal that:

Hypothesis 3: Psychological capital is positively related to organizational Outcomes. Hypothesis 3-1: Psychological capital is positively related to organizational commitments. Hypothesis 3-2: Psychological capital is positively related to employee’s job involvement. Hypothesis 3-3: Psychological capital is positively related

to job satisfaction.

Mediating role of psychological capital

Self-efficacy is instrument develop through mastery experience, modeling and vicarious learning, social persuasion and developing physiological and psychological arousal. Hope plays a vital role in developing goal setting participation and contingency planning for alternative pathways to achieve goal. Optimism is developed through compassion from the past, acknowledging the present and opportunity for investigating in the future. The final component of PsyCap, resilience is instrumental in developing through asset focused strategy such as enhancing employability, risk focused strategy such as proactive avoidance of adversity and process focused strategy to influence the interpretation of adverse events. It is understood that psychological capital as a multidimensional constructs which address job commitment and improves job satisfaction. Research has established a positive relationship between resiliency and workplace performance (Avolio and Luthans, 2006).When an employee apprehends the organizational activities in the process of incivility driven, psychological capital is helping to reduce the salience of resource loss related to activities, to cope with stressors and thereby reducing effect of workplace incivility and increasing the strength of organizational commitments. This basis of above mentioned literature, presents study proposal that (Figure 2):

Hypothesis 4: Psychological capital mediates the relationship between workplace incivility and organizational outcomes. Hypothesis 4-1: Psychological capital mediates the relationship between workplace incivility and organizational commitment. Hypothesis 4-2: Psychological capital mediates the relationship between workplace incivility and job satisfaction Hypothesis 4-3: Psychological capital mediates the

116 Afr. J. Bus. Manage. relationship between workplace incivility and job involvement. METHODOLOGY

Data collection

Random sampling technique was used and samples were collected from schools around Viti Levu (Fiji) so that maximum results were obtained. The targeted sample for this research work were the teachers employed by Ministry of Education (Fiji), having sample of 250 teachers, a quantitative research method was used to collect relevant data‟s. The final sample for the study consisted of 225 employees of Ministry of Education, Fiji. The survey was conducted in English with a covering letter that explained the purpose and importance of the study. Questionnaire was personally distributed to respondent during December and January this year, 2016. Questionnaire was also given to school heads that helped in facilitation. Mobile calls were made to remind the participants who did not responded. Following these procedure 250 questionnaires was distributed and the final response rate received was 90% (225/250). Descriptive demographic data for the entire sample are displayed in Table 2. The sample consist of 48% male (n = 108) and 52% female (n = 117). The most common age of the employees were distributed between the range from 31 to 35, specifically from 31 to 35 years old (n = 79, 35.1%) and from 26 to 25 years old (n = 43, 19.1%).

Measure

In this study, Workplace Incivility is known as independent variable and there were three dependent variables which were Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction (JS) and Job Involvement (JI). Psychological Capital as m e d i a t o r b e t w e e n independent variable and dependent variables.

Workplace incivility

Workplace incivility was measured using 20 items (4 items for Hostility, 5 items for Privacy Invasion, 7 items for Exclusionary Behaviour and 4 items for Gossiping) developed by Martin and Hine (2005). Rating was completed on a 5-point Likert – type scale, with responses ranging from (1 = Never, 5 = Very Often). Sample item included: “Used an inappropriate tone when speaking to you and Gossiped behind your back”. These items were averaged to form a scale, which had a reliability of 0.99

Psychological capital

Psychological capital was measured using 12 items on Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) developed by Luthans, Youssef (2007). Rating was completed on a 6- point Likert type scale, with r e s p o n s e s r a n g i n g f r o m (1 = Strongly Disagree, 6 = Strongly Agree). Sample item included: “I feel confident in representing my work area in meeting with management and I always look on the bright side of the things regarding my job”. These items were averaged to form a scale, which had a reliability of 0.98

Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment was measured using 8 items on

Affective Commitment questionnaire developed by Meyer and Allen (1993). Rating was completed on a 6- point Likert - type scale, with responses ranging from (1 = Strongly Disagree, 6 = Strongly Agree). Sample item included: “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organisation and this organisation has a great deal of personal meaning for me”. These items were averaged to form a scale, which had a reliability of 0.73 Job involvement Job Involvement was measured using 10 items job involvement questionnaire develop by Kanungo (1982). Rating was completed on a 6-point Likert - type scale, with responses ranging from (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Sample item included: “The most important things that happen to me involve my present job and I like to be absorbed in my job most of the time”. These items were averaged to form a scale, which had a reliability of 0.80. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction was measured using 5 item Job Satisfaction questionnaire develop by Muijs (2004). Rating was completed on a 6-point Likert - type scale, with responses ranging from (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Sample item included: “Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job and most people on this job are very satisfied with the job”. These items were averaged to form a scale, which had a reliability of 0.98 Control variable Demographic variables (Age, gender occupational experience and class roll) were included as control variable because of their possible effects on mediator and organizational outcome. RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations Table 1 includes means, standard deviations, alpha coefficients, and correlations among all variables. It show that workplace incivility has significant negative correlations with psychological capital (r = -0.89, P < 0.01), organizational commitment (r = -0.64, p < 0.01), job involvement (r = -0.90, P < 0.01), job satisfaction(r = - 0.99, P < 0.01). Validity

Following common practice (Tsui et al., 1997), we applied a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the 55 items that measure the five constructs in this study. As revealed in Table 3, the results confirmed a five-factor structure with an adjusted goodness-of-fit index (CFI) of 0.95 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.05. If the values of GFI, CFI, and NFI exceed the cut-off value of 0.9, and the value of RMSEA is below the cut-off value of 0.08, then the model is said

Xu and Kumar 117

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Age 1

Gender -0.07 1

Occupational experience 0.85** -0.20** 1

Class roll 0.16** 0.05 0.11 1

Workplace incivility 4.26 0.55 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.03 1

Psychological capital 1.74 0.54 -0.01 0.03 0.04 -0.08 -0.89** 1

Organisational outcome 1.60 0.40 -0.02 0.74** -0.14 0.02 -0.64** 0.62** 1

Job involvement 1.72 0.39 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.02 -0.90** 0.82** 0.62** 1

Job satisfaction 1.72 0.60 0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.04 -0.99** 0.90** 0.65** 0.89** 1

**P<0.05; **P<0.01.

Table 2. Validity of measurement model.

Χ2

df RMSEA CFI GFI NFI 350.22 230 0.05 0.95 0.89 0.92

Table 3. Multiple regressions.

Dependent variable

Organizational commitment Job involvement Job satisfaction

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Age 0.12 0.49 0.74 -0.01 0.12 0.03

Gender 0.73 0.73 0.41 0.04 -0.01 -0.02

Occupational experience -0.09 -0.04 -0.06 0.01 -0.11 -0.04

Class roll -0.03 -0.01 0.02 0.05 -0.04 -0.01

Workplace incivility -0.63** -0.90** -0.99**

R2

0.55 0.95 0.01 0.81 0.01 0.98

*P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001.

to be acceptable (Hu and Bentler, 1999). The potential threat of common method bias was checked with Harman‟s single-factor test via confirmatory factor analysis. This test is based on the assumption that common method bias is a serious problem when a single latent factor will account f o r more than 50% of the total variance of the measures (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results for the single-factor model were as follows: χ2 = 2674.32; df = 1344; GFI = 0.64; AGFI = 0.61; NFI = 0.66; RMSEA = 0.083. The chi-square test demonstrated that the five-factor model was superior to the single-factor model (350.22 vs 2674.32). Consequently, the results were worse than that of a five-factor model and one single-factor model did not account for the majority of the variance. In short, common method bias was not a critical threat in this study.

Hypothesis testing The hypothesis 1 of the study postulated that a negative relationship would exist between workplace incivility and organizational outcomes. Table 3 showing the results of multiple regression on the relationships between work place incivility and organizational outcomes indicates workplace incivility are negatively and significantly related to affective commitment (β = -0.63, P < 0.001), job involvement (β = -0.90, P < 0.001) job satisfaction (β = -0.99, P < 0.001) respectively. Thus hypothesis 1(1, 2 and 3) can be supported.

Hypothesis 2 proposes that workplace incivility is negatively related to psychological capital. It is conformed in Table 4 showing that workplace incivility has a negative relationship with psychological capital (β = -0.89, P < 0,001). Thus hypothesis 2 is supported.

118 Af r . J . Bus. Manage.

Table 4. Regression results for Hypothesis 3, 4, and 5.

Dependent variable

Psychological capital Organizational commitment Job satisfaction Job involvement

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Age 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.02 -0.04 -0.01

Gender 0.02 0.01 0.72 0.73 -0.03 -0.02 0.03 0.04

Occupational experience -0.05 -0.08 0.01 -0.03 0.02 -0.03 0.06 0.02

Class roll -0.09 -0.05 0.02 0.01 0.04 -0.01 0.09 0.06

Workplace incivility -0 .90** -0 .50** -0 .60** -0 .61**

Psychological capital 0 .60** 0 .14** 0 .90** 0 .10** 0 .83** 0 .11**

R2

0.01 0 .08 0 .55 0 .95 0 .98 0 .68 0 .81

*P<0.05 **P<0.01 ***P<0.001

Hypothesis 3 predicts that psychological capital is positively related to the organizational outcomes (organizational commitment, job involvement, job satisfaction). As shown in Table 4, psychological capital has a positive relationship with organizational commitment (β = 0.60, P < 0.001), job involvement (β = 0.83, P < 0.001), job satisfaction (β = 0.91, P < 0.001), respectively. Thus Hypothesis 3-1, 3-2, 3-3 is supported, which means hypothesis 3 is fully supported, conclusively.

Hypothesis 4 proposes that psychological capital mediates the relationships between workplace incivility and organizational outcomes. To test the mediating role of psychological capital, three steps regression approach recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) was followed. According to them, the three following regression equations should be estimated to test mediation. First, regressing the mediator on the independent variable; second, regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable; and third, regressing the dependent variable on both independent variable and on the mediator. To establish mediation, the following conditions must hold. First, the independent variable must affect the mediator in the first e q u a t i o n . Second i n d e p e n d e n t variable m u s t b e shown to affect the dependent variable in the second equation. Third, the mediator must a f fec t dependent variable in the third equation. If these conditions all hold in the predicted direction, then the effect of independent variable on dependent variable must be less in the third equation than in the second, perfect mediation holds if the independent variable has no e f f e c t when the mediator is contro l led. Partial med ia t ion holds in the case that the effect is significantly reduced in the third. Hypothesis 3 and 4 show that required three 4-1 predicts that psychological capital mediates the relationship between workplace incivility and organizational commitment. Tables conditions are met. The effects of workplace incivility (independent variable) on dependent variable is significantly reduced t o - 0.50, though it does not reach

zero. Thus hypothesis is partially supported. To solidify the testing results we employee another

more statistically rigorous method, Sobel test (1982), by which mediation hypothesis may be assessed. It provides a more direct test of an indirect effect. In the case of simple mediation, the Sobel test is conducted by comparing the strength of the indirect effect of independent variable(X) on dependent variable(Y) to the point null hypothesis that it equals zero. Result from the Sobel tests indicates that the indirect effects of workplace incivility on OC (z = -3.722, P < 0.01) is in the anticipated directions and are statistically significant. Thus hypothesis 4-1 was supported.

The reduced effect of workplace incivility on job involvement from -0.90 (P < 0.01) to -0.61 (P< 0.01) confirms hypothesis 4-2. Partial mediation holds in this case, too. Result from the Sobel tests also indicates the mediating role of psychological capital in the relationship between workplace incivility and job involvement. The indirect effects (z = -2.71, P < 0.01) are statistically significant. Thus hypothesis 4-2 was supported. Hypothesis 4-3, proposing that psychological capital mediates a role in the relationship between workplace incivility and job satisfaction, is confirmed in Tables 3 and 4. It can be identified in the table that three conditions for mediation are met and the effect of workplace incivility on job satisfaction is reduced from -0.99 (P < 0.01) in the Equation 2 to -0.61(P < 0.01) in the Equation 3. The results show that hypothesis 4-3 is partially supported. The results of Sobel test additionally implemented reinforce the mediation role of psychological capital. It indicates that the indirect effects of workplace incivility on job satisfaction (z = -2.647, P < 0.01) is in the anticipated directions and is statistically significant. Thus hypothesis 4-3 is supported too.

As a supplement to the Baron and Kenny‟s (1986) approach, the bootstrapping method was also employed for testing the effects of intervening variables (Williams and Mackinnon, 2008). Bootstrapping generates an empirical representation of the sampling distribution of

X u a n d K u m a r 1 1 9

Table 5. Bootstrapping results of indirect effect for dependable variable.

Coefficient SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Organizational commitment 0.17** 0.08 0.28 0.44 Job involvement 0.11** 0.04 0.18 0.26 Job satisfaction 0.18** 0.03 0.11 0.22 *P<0.05; **P<0.01; ***P<0.001.

the indirect effect by treating the obtained sample of size n as a representation of the population in miniature, one that is repeatedly resample during analysis as a means of mimicking the original sampling process (Hayes, 2009). Hypotheses 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 was examined using Amos 23 (Arbuckle 2009), which is currently the only available software package that directly produces bootstrapped percentile and bias-corrected confidence intervals for indirect effects, was used to perform the bootstrap analysis. To begin with, the software drew a three variable path diagram, with error terms for the endogenous mediator and the dependent variable. Then, 2,000 bootstrap samples were set by changing the bootstrap option because (the default value in Amos 23 is 200).

Moreover, it was necessary to override the confidence intervals in both the bias-corrected and the percentile options (the original is set to 90%) because this study needed to test a 95% confidence interval. By clicking the „calculate estimate‟ button, Amos 23 can provide the estimated coefficient a, b, c and c‟ and their corresponding standard errors, as well as the confidence intervals in the output file. The following section will discuss the results of testing hypotheses 4- 1, 4-2 and 4-3 respectively using the mediation effect and bootstrap methods.

In hypothesis 4-1, the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval is shown in Table 5. This assumed more accurate confidence interval (0.277, 0.444) excludes zero, thus supporting hypothesis 4a, that the indirect effect of workplace incivility on organizational commitment through the mediator psychological capital, is statistically significant at the 0.05 level B = 0.170 (P < 0.01). The percentile 95% confidence interval also does not include zero, which further supports hypothesis 4-1. In hypothesis 4-2, the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval is shown in Table 5. This assumed more accurate confidence interval (0.178, 0.258) excludes zero, thus supporting hypothesis 4-2, that the indirect effect of workplace incivility on job involvement through the mediator psychological capital, is statistically significant at the 0.05 level B= 0.110 (P < 0.01). The percentile 95% confidence interval also does not include zero, which further supports hypothesis 4-2. In hypothesis 4-3, the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval is shown in Table 5.

This assumed more accurate confidence interval

(0.113, 0.217) excludes zero, thus supporting hypothesis 4-3, that the indirect effect of workplace incivility on job satisfaction through the mediator psychological capital, is statistically significant at the 0.05 level B = 0.177 (P < 0.01). The percentile 95% confidence interval also does not include zero, which further supports hypothesis 4-3. DISCUSSION Workplace incivility displayed a negative statistically and practically significant relationship with the response to organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction (P ≤ 0.01) (high effect). Further, the sub dimensions of workplace incivility such as hostility, privacy invasion, Exclusionary behavior and gossiping subscale displayed a negative practically and statistically significant relationship with organizational commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction (P ≤ 0.01) (high effect), indicating that individuals low on job involvement may display greater incivility within the workplace. In a d d i t i o n , t h e f i n d i n g s a l s o indicated that psychological capital was statistically negatively correlated with workplace incivility (P ≤ 0.01), indicating that individuals possessing high levels of PsyCap may be less likely to display incivility within the workplace. On the other hand psychological capital shows that the higher the employees' psychological capital, the higher their employee’s commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction to the organization. Research conducted by Roberts (2011) indicated that employees displaying high levels of psychological capital possess psychological resources that produce positive workplace behaviors; this could explain the relationship between psychological capital and job involvement, as individuals possessing high levels of self-efficacy, hope, optimism and resi l ience may possess greater psychological resources to draw upon in achieving positive workplace outcomes such as job involvement.

Hope as one of the sub dimensions of psychological capital is a motivational state including one’s determination of precious objectives and bel ief of getting over the impediments to reach these objectives. The results of our research showed tha t em ployees who are more hopeful and have high self-efficacy a may

120 Af r . J . Bus . Manage. be more satisfied and committed to their organizations resulting in higher job satisfaction. Optimism is a purpose oriented state when a desired result has high value. The results showed that employees who are more optimistic also may be more satisfied with their job and deeply royal to their organizations. Resilience is a person’s psychological capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, and failure. We found that employees who are more resilient also may be more satisfied with their jobs. When reviewed the literature, Larson and Luthans (2006) found positive relationship between general psychological capital and job satisfaction. Avey (2009) found strong and positive relationships between psychological capital and employee commitment, job satisfaction and intentions to stay with the organization. The obtained results of this study support all of these findings as hope, optimism and resilience was positively related to organizational commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction.

Employees with greater levels of psychological capital are more likely to be dedicated to their assignments, to have a strong sense of duty, and to respond resolutely to adversity. The privacy invasion and exclusionary behavior subscale, in particular, displayed a strong negative relationship with Response to Work and organizational commitment. This indicates t h e nature of the uncivil acts perpetrated as an expression of one’s low level of job involvement and organizational commitment. Such acts may include invading a coworker’s privacy by taking their things without seeking permission, reading e-mails addressed to them and not consulting them in decisions they should be involved in. This further indicates that individuals experiencing low levels of job involvement may engage in hostile behaviour towards their co-workers through acts such as delaying responding to their queries without reason, gossiping about them and speaking to them harshly. Psychological capital was statistically and practically significantly correlated with the Expression of being Job Involved subscale of job involvement (p ≤ 0.01) (high effect). This indicates that individuals with high PsyCap are more likely to be personally involved with their jobs, may consider the most important things that happen to them to be connected to their jobs and may even feel depressed when they fail at something connected to their jobs. The PsyCap dimension of Optimism also displayed a positive relationship with organizational commitment, Job Involvement and job satisfaction. This indicates that individuals who have positive expectations of the future tend to exhibit a greater degree of identification with their work and tend to immerse themselves in the i r work, finding meaning and satisfaction in carrying out their tasks.

Conclusion In spite of certain limitations, this research delivered a

number of useful results. In summation, the present study’s findings broaden the geographies of incivility research by extending organizational behaviour literature on incivility to the Fijian context. Relevantly, the study provided insight into how employees, specifically professionals from a diverse Fijian context perceive and react to uncivil workplace behaviours. In particular, this study provided evidence that being a target of workplace incivility leads to adverse effect on organizational commitments, job satisfaction and job involvement Practical implications

It has been suggested that such complex workplace environments give rise to uncivil behaviour because employees are too caught up in their demanding job roles to be courteous to their co- workers (Pearson and Porath, 2005). The implication that part of the workforce experiencing workplace incivility can be devastating to an organization’s productivity as workplace incivility has been found to be associated w i th var ious organizational outcomes such as organizational commitments, job involvement, job satisfaction etc. Importantly, Andersson and Pearson (1999) make reference to the “incivility spiral” (p. 458) which suggests a circular pattern of uncivil behaviour , when one employee behaves uncivilly, the victim retaliates with uncivil behaviour, and bystanders model the observed behaviours. This highlights that uncivil behaviour could quickly assimilate into an undesirable organizational culture. Consequently, preventing or reducing uncivil behaviour at work is important. Moreover, it is particularly important for organizations to work towards reducing the occurrence of uncivil behaviour because it is predominantly those high in PsyCap that are likely to leave the organization or perceived workplace incivility can adversely affect the organizational outcome and deteriorate the working environment. Thus it becomes a prerogative for the organization to retain employees with high in PsyCap as these employees greatly beneficial to the organization. In monitoring uncivil conduct and limiting its effects, organizations should not rely only on avenues of redress by taking action once reported incidences have come to light. Instead, a proactive approach to conducting interventions should be adopted as a preventative strategy which would limit the onset of an uncivil work environment which gives rise to negative individual and organizational outcomes. Additionally, organizations should endeavor to foster a work environment and climate where rude and discourteous behaviour is not tolerated as this might signal to employees that the organization is supportive of those who might experience incivility and as a result i n c r e a s e employees‟ levels of psychological safety. According to Leiter (2011), proposed a risk management model of

workplace civility where organizations attempt to reflect that incivility at work enables a harmful environment and that such an environment in social the workplace weakens an employee’s sense of psychological safety. In summation, by promoting civility at work, organizations can improve organizational outcomes, the quality of workplace relationships and individual wellness. Limitations of the study Firstly, participants‟ tendency to provide socially desirable responses, especially on the uncivil workplace behavior scale which requires that they admit to perpetrating acts of incivility, calls into question the accuracy of the findings. Socially desirable responding is a common problem especially when self-report questionnaires are used. Secondly, participants displayed a lack of interest in completing the questionnaires as many frequently chose the same response throughout certain questionnaires or displayed a noticeable pattern in their responses which suggested that they had not answered the questionnaire honestly. Lastly, the use of a cross- sectional research design in which data is collected at a fixed point in time does not allow for the determining of causal relationships among variables. While significant relationships between variables were determined in the present study, causal relationships cannot be inferred from these findings. In order for causality to be determined, future research will have to adopt a longitudinal research design by studying the same phenomenon at different points in time. Recommendations

A positive relationship was found between psychological capital organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job involvement. This indicates that high levels of psychological capital are associated with high levels of organizational outcomes, suggesting that organizations should invest in training which is aimed at improving the psychological capital of employees in order to increase their level of organizational outcomes. The PsyCap subscale of self-efficacy, hope, Optimism and resilience was determined to have very strong predictive value for organizational outcomes, this further confirms the benefits of organizations investing in interventions aimed at improving the psychological capital of employees, but more importantly, improving their self- efficacy as way of enhancing their organizational outcomes. Luthans et al. (2006) have demonstrated the utility of interventions aimed at improving psychological capital through an hour-long micro-intervention conducted amongst a sample of management students and managers from several organizations, finding that the intervention was successful in improving the psychological capital of

Xu and Kumar 121 these individuals. Such an intervention, if implemented correctly within the workplace, would not only prove efficient by minimizing costs and the time required to implement the intervention, but would also ensure greater willingness among employees to participate in the intervention. Future research endeavors in this area of study should consider controlling for the specific limitations of the study mentioned above. This can be achieved through providing desirable incentives for individuals to willingly participate in the study, rather than relying on individual’s sense of duty towards the organization to provide adequate incentive to participate. This may achieve a higher response rate and, possibly, more honest responses which would ensure more reliable findings. In spite of the various limitations of the study, future research can further examine the relationship between workplace incivility psychological capital and the organizational outcomes. CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.

REFERENCES Abbas M, Raja U (2015). Impact of psychological capital on innovative

performance and job stress. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration 32(2):128-138.

Allen NJ, Meyer JP (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 49:252-276.

Andersson LM, Pearson CM (1999). Tit for tat? The spiralling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academic Management Review 24(3):452-471.

Ashforth BE (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relation 47(7):755-778.

Avey BJ, Luthans F, Jensen SM (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management 48(5):677-693.

Baba VV, Jamal M, Tourigny L (1998). Work and mental health: A decade in Canadian research. Canadian Psychology 38:94-107.

Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal Perspective Social Psychology 51:1173-1182.

Bass BM (1965). Organizational psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109

Estes B, Wang J (2008). Workplace incivility: Impacts on individual and organizational performance. Human Resource Development Review 7(2):218-240.

Hayes AF (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs 76(4):408-420.

Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling 6(1):1-55.

Jaros (1995). An assessment of Meyer and Allen‟s (1991). Three- component model of organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Proceedings 1:317-328.

Johnson PR, Indvik J (2001). Rudeness at work: Impulse over restraint. Public Personnel Management 30(4):457-465.

Kanungo RN (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology 67:341-349.

122 Afr. J. Bus. Manage. Lim S, Cortina LM (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace:

The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology 90:483-496.

Luthans F (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 23:695-706.

Luthans F, Avey JB, Avolio BJ, Norman S, Combs G. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 27:387-393.

Luthans K, Luthans B (2004). Positive psychological capital: Going beyond human and social capital. Bussiness Horizons 47(1):45-50.

Marcson S (1960). The scientist in American Industry. Harper, New York.

Meyer JP, Allen NJ (1991). A three – component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1:61-89.

Meyer JP, Allen NJ, Smith CA (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three- component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(4):538-551.

Mowday RT, Boulian PV (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology 59(5):603-609.

Neuman JH, Baron RA (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management 24:391-419.

Pearson C, Andersson L, Porath C (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “nice”? Think again. Academic Management Review 19(1):7-18.

Pearson CM, Andersson LM, Porath CL (2005). Workplace incivility. In Fox S, Spector PE (eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actor and targets. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. pp. 177–200. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005

Penney LM, Spector PE (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The mediating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behaviour 26:777-796.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003).

Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88:879-903.

Porter L, Steers R, Mowday R, Boulian P (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology 59:603-609.

Rospenda KM (2002). Workplace harassment, services utilization, and drinking outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7(2):141-155.

Snyder CR, Irving LM, Anderson JR (1991). Hope and health. In Snyder CR, Fbrsyth DR (eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. pp 285-305. Available at: http://dx.doi:10.1023/A: 1005547730153

Spector P (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes and Consequences. California:

Taylor SG (2010). Cold looks and hot tempers: individual-level effects of incivility in the workplace. PhD, thesis, Bradley University.

Tsui AS, Pearce JL, Porter LW, Tripoli AM (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment pay off? Academic Management Journal 40:1089-1121.

Williams J, MacKinnon DP (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modelling 15:23-51.